I was 1100 chess.com before a year and had pretty good winning rate there. Then after serious tilt I dropped to 650 and I started playing on lichess instead of chess.com, and recently played some games in chess.com after improving, but I felt my opponents were not very easy to beat. I know lichess gives higher rating, but what I'm saying is 600 and 1000 feels similar amount of skill in chess.com. Is it just me or is the low rating pool actually like this?
Lots of new players started to play on chess.com and start from 400 and they're learning, so chess.com rating distribution is much more left-censored now than anytime before, but it should not felt like 600 and 1000 have similar skill level as the time that I was 1100 is also after the chess boom
chess.com ratings are screwy at best
If you measure your height in different countries, you will get different numbers. Not because your height depends on the country. But because in different countries they measure with different units of measurement. Every rating is correct!!!
@RemRus said [^](/forum/redirect/post/p6UBQdrS)
> If you measure your height in different countries, you will get different numbers. Not because your height depends on the country. But because in different countries they measure with different units of measurement. Every rating is correct!!!
Yeah, Chess.com uses Glicko as a rating system, whilst Lichess uses Glicko-2. They literally are different measurements!
Even on this one site there are 6 different ratings. And each of them is correct!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.